Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

apeweek

I presume that an electric heater would be almost instant on...

Yes, electric heaters are instant on - some compensation for the fact that EV heaters are a little wimpier than ICE counterparts (there is simply no comparison to a massive ICE heat-making machine.)

Some old EVs (mine, for instance) originally came with gas-fired heaters, and a little gas tank. I replaced that pretty quick, though I have corresponded with someone who converted his gas-fired heater to biodiesel.

rorr

"...how about we simply say that 1/3 of our trade deficit comes from oil imports. This weakens our economic position. Is that good enough to introduce reducing imports into the equation?"

Absolutely!

In the post you refer to, I wasn't objecting to discussing the problems of oil imports from an economic perspective. I had a problem with the association of "oil" with our national security. Because THAT discussion immediately leads to the "no blood for oil" carp that passes for intelligent discourse amoung some factions.

My point being that EVEN if we were 100% energy self-reliant, our National Security is still contingent upon continuing problems in the Mideast.

IMO.

midnightcowboy

rorr,

downgrade to an EV for a commuter only vehicle. Why not save even more gas an rid a bicycle ?

Point is the infrastructure doesn't exist for anything more than a novelty, like commuting. Agan I say , why do you think the EV-1 failed ? It was designed as a novelty fro commuting and could be recharged over night. De Javue , failure about to repaet itself!

What is the public's drive for a Hybrid or and EV ? Well , it sure appaears to only be voodddo psuedo economy.

Because it economy was the criteria, there would be a 1200 pound no frills diesel hybrid that would get 150 miles per gallon. I t would have AC and radio, not other frills. Minimal safttey equipment, no power steering , no electric seats, suinroof windows, no cruise control. Minimal saftey maybe SRS and SABs.

Believe it or not there are many people taht are really looking for economy and can only afford one car.

YMMV,

MidCow

snakeweasel

Believe it or not there are many people taht are really looking for economy and can only afford one car.

That may be true but lets face it most families are two car families and an EV for the second car makes perfect sense.

Also FWIW the EV-1 wasn't that much a failure. Many of those that leased them wanted to buy them when they were leased. And from what I was told there was a waiting list to get them.

terry92270

People looking for only one car, and a highly economical one, cost-wise, and can only barely afford one car, are at best a niche market, and not worthy of inclusion in a discussion about mass marketing appeal, and a successful launch of a new technology. There will always be poor people. And they will always be served by a niche marketer until new technology is so cheap to make the big guns get into it. That is why trailer home sales stay steady.

EV-1 was only a success among those who wanted the technology, were already sold on its "viability". 500 or even 3,000 people clamoring for something is in no way a "success"

midnightcowboy

snakeweasel said: "Also FWIW the EV-1 wasn't that much a failure. Many of those that leased them wanted to buy them when they were leased. And from what I was told there was a waiting list to get them."

The facts below dispute what you said: (1) most didn't want to buy becuase leased rate was very low and (2) there was not a waiting list

In spite of the $33,995 to $43,995 price tag, the movie " The film EV Confidential: Who Killed the Electric Car? " showcased the intense passion for GM's out-of-production EV1 electric vehicle.

Lastly, because the movie made some harsh criticisms of GM for discontinuing the EV1, let me set the record straight:

GM spent more than $1 billion developing the EV1 including significant sums on marketing and incentives to develop a mass market for it.
Only 800 vehicles were leased during a four-year period.
No other major automotive manufacturer is producing a pure electric vehicle for use on public roads and highways.
A waiting list of 5,000 only generated 50 people willing to follow through to a lease.

reference http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/fastlane_Blog.html#EV1============

The EV1 was the first production quality battery electric vehicle produced by General Motors in the United States and, at the time, was the only electric vehicle in the history of the company to bear the "General Motors" badge.

GM leased over 800 EV1 cars out of about 1100 manufactured[1] with the provision that after the three-year leases were up, the cars reverted to the company. They were available in California and Arizona and could be serviced at designated Saturn dealers.

The purpose of the EV1 was, in part, to satisfy California's Zero-emissions vehicle mandate initiated in 1990. The ZEV program specified that by 1998, 2% of all new cars sold were to have no emissions. GM stated that they spent over $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1, though much of this cost was defrayed by the Clinton Administration's $1.25 Billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)[2] project.[3][4]

In late 2003, GM cancelled the EV1 program.[5][6] Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable.[7] GM also cited a lack of demand.

The price for the car used to compute lease payments was $33,995 to $43,995, which made for lease payments of $299 to over $574 per month. One industry official said that each EV1 cost the company about $80,000, including research and development costs.[8] The vehicle's lease prices also depended on available state rebates. Without government subsidies each of the 1100 cars produced would have cost the company in excess of $900,000 [citation needed], about half the lifetime earnings of the average American worker [citation needed]. At that time, the cost for the electricity used to power the car was computed to be 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the equivalent amount of gasoline[citation needed], and since that time increases in gas prices have made electricity relatively even less expensive.
reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

YOMV,

MidCow

apeweek

Well, the problem with offering GM's version of the EV1 story as evidence is that, frankly, much of that version of events is in dispute (in fact, much of the point of the movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car' was to dispute GM's version of events.)

There is a case to be made for not taking what GM says about the car at face value. The movie caught GM red-handed lying about the crushing of the EV1s. GM also denied the existence of a waiting list until they were caught lying about that, too. What else are they lying about, and why?

The problem with calling the car a 'failure' is that it implies the public rejected it. But frankly, the vast majority of the public didn't even know the car existed. This makes the car a marketing failure, not a technological failure.

This is an important distinction. Poor marketing has killed many technologically superior products over the years, and good marketing has vaulted mediocre products to success. The merits of a product are not the sole arbiter of its success! Many of us have stories from within our own workplaces of people succeeding based on their abilities to position and sell themselves, over their actual competence to perform their jobs. It's the same with products in the marketplace, and we should not forget this.

Indeed, as has been pointed out before, the Toyota RAV4 EV seems to be increasing in value every time one comes up for sale on eBay. What does this say about market demand for practical EVs?

As for the vast sums of money developing the EV1, remember that much of that was our tax money in the form of subsidies. GM would not have spent this much of its own money on such a venture, and I doubt Toyota spent such large sums developing their RAV4 EV, another advanced electric vehicle.

If Toyota could do theirs for so much less, this implies either some careless spending or creative accounting on GMs part. I don't take that billion dollar number at face value, simply because it doesn't make sense.

snakeweasel

remember I said it wasn't that much of a failure, not that it was a raving success.

First off many of those who leased the cars wanted to buy them. Secondly there was a significant waiting list. that would tell someone that the car had some basic success.

Also I would take anything in Wikipedia with a grain od salt.

terry92270

We all support the idea and expanding the technology!

However please stop with the "significant" talk! :P The number of people, as I have previously posted, if we take everything those conspiracy whackos say as truth, isn't large, or significant, when talking about some kind of mass support. Period. To successfully market an automobile, you are talking hundreds of thousands, not 1,500 or even 10,000. The EV was very well marketed in California, thousands of articles and lots of TV. For the territory there, and average commute distances, it just didn't catch on.

tpe

You don't know how many EV1s GM would have sold. You only know that they pre-sold every one that they manufactured. If they made more I'm sure they would have sold more. If they sold it outside CA and AZ I'm sure they would have sold even more. How many? I don't know. Probably not huge numbers but there really aren't that many vehicles that sell over 100,000 units per year. That doesn't make them insignificant. Also keep in mind that gas has become more expensive, the political climate has changed and battery technology has improved. All things that make EVs easier to market.

IMO, the main obstacle preventing EVs from having more mainstream appeal has little to do with range or re-charge times. Its the initial cost. I believe that if you could build an electric Toyota Camry and sell it for around the same amount it would be incredibly popular even if it only had a 200 mile range. From everything that I've read EVs, if produced on a large scale, should eventually cost no more than their ICE counterparts. Even if they cost a few thousand more that would quickly be made up in fuel and maintenance savings.

apeweek

A waiting list of 5000 is significant because the car was only available in one corner of the USA. By extrapolation, the size of the list might indeed have been closer to 100,000 if the EV experiment had taken place over the whole of the USA, and by further extrapolation, much larger still if marketed to the whole world. Those are good numbers for such an expensive car. How many people in the USA are shopping for a car at any given moment? What fraction of that number is 100,000? I'll bet it is a significant fraction.

If the car had been quicker and easier to get, if the car could be bought instead of just leased, if GM tossed out some of the mountain of paperwork they made lessees fill out, the number of interested customers could only have gone up.

And the technology behind the EV1 wasn't nearly as fully developed as it is today.

That is why the number is significant.

snakeweasel

To successfully market an automobile, you are talking hundreds of thousands, not 1,500 or even 10,000. The EV was very well marketed in California, thousands of articles and lots of TV. For the territory there, and average commute distances, it just didn't catch on.

You cannot judge the success of the EV-1 based on the fact that only 1000 were built and sold. You have to look at the fact that GM sold each and everyone they made and that there was a waiting list for the car. If GM actually met demand across the US we have no ideal how many they could have sold.

The EV-1 in its limited exposure and production run was very successful.

midnightcowboy

Well it seems to me that from a business perspective that if EV-1 could have been successful then an enterprising niche business would have taken the concept from the prototype stage and run with it and become a very, very profitable company.

Well that didn't happen and you dont understand wh??? Let me give you a big clue. The average EV-1 cost $40K and it could sell for maybe $20K or tops $25k.

A continual loss of $15-20K per car is why the EV-1 didn't fly.

Yes 5,000 people wanted it but not at the price it would have cost just to breakeven.

Simple Economics 101.

Now battery technology has advance some and gas prices have increased some peoeple are relooking electric vehicles. But Hybrids are ecopnomical yet from a pure TCO standpoint.

LOL,

MidCow

snakeweasel

Well if you are going to give an Economics 101 class why don't we talk about economies of scale. That is where the cost per car goes down as you increase the number of cars you produce. So the average cost per car for 5,000 is less than the average cost per car for 1,000 but higher than the average cost per car for 50,000.

midnightcowboy

Economies of Scale

Okay there are two factors in cost:

(1) Developmental/ research/start-up costs

(2) Ongoing production costs

(1) costs can be spread over the number of cars produced
lets say for simplicity they are $100 million dollars

(2) costs are ongoing per car lets say $25,000 per car.

A. if I sell 1,000 cars the effective cost per car is
$100 million /1,000 + $25,000 = $125,000

B. If i sell 5,000 cars the effective cost per car is
$100 million /5,000 + $25,000 = $45,000

C. If is sell 100,000 cars the effective cost per car is
$100 million/100,000 + $25,000 = $26,000

Now if you sell the car for $25,000 which is best ?

A. Loss of $100,000 per car
B. Loss of $20,000 per car (better)
C. Loss of $1,000 per car (best)

But wait GM spent 11 Billion $$ How in the heck could they ever recover that cost? The answer is they couldn't, so they scrapped the EV-1 project.


Satisfied now ?

MidCow

apeweek

The EV1 is no different from any other new model. Development costs are recovered after a certain number of cars have been sold.

Pulling the car off the market - especially when there is proven demand - is the only surefire way to lose money on your investment.

The money you're claiming GM is losing on every car is mainly the amortized development cost, not the manufacturing cost. That development money is already spent. The way to get it back is to sell more cars. If your manufacturing costs is $25000, you can sell for $26000 if you have to. This is better than not recovering any develpment costs at all.

Where on earth did you get that $11 billion number? Who in their right mind would spend that to develop ANY car?

The $1 billion number is what's usually quoted, and that number includes government incentives (tax dollars) which is why GM would spend money they don't hope to recover.

Economics 101, indeed.

snakeweasel

Satisfied now ?

No, because research and development doesn't get charged to the car in total. Only a portion of that research and development gets applied to the EV-1 since that research and development can also be applied to other cars down the line. But thats Cost accounting and most likely at a level above your knowledge (not a jib at you just that its an upper level accounting course that few outside of accounting majors would take).

So what is applied directly to the car are production costs, fixed costs that can be directly attributed to the EV-1 and no other and a portion of all other fixed costs that can be attributed to the EV-1 but not only to the EV-1.

Again increasing the production would have reduced the cost per vehicle to a more acceptable and cost effective level.

snakeweasel

Development costs are recovered after a certain number of cars have been sold.

At times that can take years.

But remember that research and development costs can be covered by more than one car. If that technology makes it into another car say a few years down the road that car contributes to the recovering of that R & D.

reddroverr

Isn't GM losing X per car anyway? At least one GM exec has stated that dropping the EV was a big mistake. HAd they kept it, they might have been a leader in technology in at least one category...and not playing catch-up to foreign car companies in categories like hybrids.

The R&D were essentially sunk costs anyway.

tpe

At least one GM exec has stated that dropping the EV was a big mistake.

The person who made that comment was GM's CEO at the time the EV1 was discontinued. He describes that decision as his biggest regret. Maybe he'll take some comfort in the fact that midnightcowboy feels he made the right move.

I think GM's R&D costs are a somewhat inflated. I've read that the actual costs were a little over $500 million and GM chose to round it up to the nearest billion for press releases. It's a more impressive number and it better supports their claim of being truly committed to making this technology viable.

reddroverr

Until this Tesla car I was thinking that plug-in hybrids would probably win out. Now, if they can deliver what they are saying, EV looks pretty darn good to me.

Advantages:

EV would be vastly simplified over a PIH (plug in hybrid) and ICE. No plugs, no radiator cooling system, simplified transmission, etc.

Vastly less maintanance. The Tesla people say basically no maintence schedule for the first 100k!
Sorry Mr Goodwrench.

Reliability should be better. Basically just the battery and some controling electronics to worry about. Batteries will be gauge monitored to provide status and feedback. I hear people talking about all those dead batteries on the freeway. I remind people that radiators blow, alternators blow, starters blow, trannies fail, plugs foul, cips fail...etc. After they get the initial bugs out...ev should prove more reliable.

Cost of ownership: It seems to me that unless the batteries are outlandishly expensive, that in mass production these cars may well end up cheaper due to their simplicity. But perhaps car makers will have to charge more because they will render their service departments less profitable. Add to this the reduced per mile cost and maintenence cost reduction.

Time: not more trips to the gas station. no more waiting around (or do it yourself) for oil changes, coolant flushes.

Intangibles such as foreign oil, trade deficits, GHG etc.

Disadvantages:

Limited range. 200 is acceptable in my book, but it would be an inconvenience on occssions.

Cost of vehicles in initial stages. Unless one of the big boys embraces this tech and puts their back into it, they will be more expensive.

Charging station: folks may well have to run a new circuit in their residences to charge the car. not really a big deal. Have to find a charger on the road for travel. Maybe a problem unless we see pretty wide acceptance.

Time to charge. Not really a big deal to me. I would rather plug in at home than have to go to the gas station, but I does take longer to "fill."

Possible health consequences. Can't really be certain that being aound that type of voltage in the car might not have long term health effects.
********
Thanks to those who post here. I've learned a lot. Sooooo much more interesting than folks complaining that the Fit doesn't have a dead pedal. :P

rorr

Hey MidCow -

I'm confused (I know, go figure). I thought the reason you said that the EV would have a tough go was due to lack of infrastructure and no way for quick recharges.

And yet, you keep citing the failure of the EV-1 was due to cost?

Which is it?

Personally, if (and that's a mighty big "if) an EV commuter were available for purchase (not lease, purchase) and the purchase price were comparable to a regular ICE commuter car, why wouldn't the EV be a success sold as a 2nd car for commuting, NOT as a family's only vehicle.

"Why not save even more gas an rid a bicycle ?"

Um, because my commute is roughly 30 miles round trip, I occasionally need to carry a couple of extra folks (drop off the kids for school) and I don't want to show up at work all sweaty. In short, I want a car. And the need to recharge an EV overnight at home would NOT keep my butt out of an EV.

midnightcowboy

Hey Rorr thanks for asking:

Hey MidCow -

I'm confused (I know, go figure). I thought the reason you said that the EV would have a tough go was due to lack of infrastructure and no way for quick recharges.
reason EV in general still won't fly today even in higher gas price environment.

And yet, you keep citing the failure of the EV-1 was due to cost? Yes reason for specific EV-1 failure

Which is it?

Personally, if (and that's a mighty big "if) an EV commuter were available for purchase (not lease, purchase) and the purchase price were comparable to a regular ICE commuter car, why wouldn't the EV be a success sold as a 2nd car for commuting, NOT as a family's only vehicle. Might work iff ( if and only if) there really is a substantial two car market and people really want a commuter car. Most people say they want green, say they want high mileage, but then buy an expensive car with all luxury features. Examples a $30K Prius of Camry Hybrid are not economical solutions for Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Build a lightweight no frills car and save at low cost; that is not what public wants. My contention is that a $30K 200 mile electric car with limited luxury feature is not what they want either!

"Why not save even more gas an rid a bicycle ?"

Um, because my commute is roughly 30 miles round trip, I occasionally need to carry a couple of extra folks (drop off the kids for school) and I don't want to show up at work all sweaty. In short, I want a car. And the need to recharge an EV overnight at home would NOT keep my butt out of an EV. Okay okay, it is not a solution for most. I have a coworker who live close rides his bicycle every day and complains when he has to fill up once a month .

Cheers,

MidCow

rorr

Mixed messages.

I say that an EV COULD be successful (even without extensive infrastructure or ability to recharge quickly). And I can point to the extremely LARGE number of cars which have been sold intended as a family's 2nd (or 3rd) car which don't NEED extensive range. (I understand your point that often folks say they want one thing but buy something else - and that could be a huge hairy fly in the ointment). I think the problem is that what constitutes 'acceptable' range varies substantially amoung individuals.

Another (major) issue to be resolved is the public's perception of batteries in general (ie. older batteries tend to hold less charge - would an EV with a 100 mile range when new have only a 25 mile range after 3 years? The answer may well be 'no, the range is constant', but actually CONVINCING a large number of folks of this may be difficult).

I mean, it's one thing to replace batteries in your cordless phone or laptop after a couple of years because they no longer hold a charge; it's another thing when contemplating an EV purchase. THAT I think is more of an issue that lack of infrastructure.

People DO really want commuter cars. I'm not saying that EV's could replace 50% of the market (or even 25%). I think that it is ENTIRELY feasible that they could represent as much as 10% of the market IF THE COST WAS REASONABLE.

And I've never advocated that an EV commuter vehicle HAD to be devoid of 'luxury' touches. Any particular reason why an EV vehicle couldn't have AC, a pleather interior, 'wood' trim, NAV, killer tunes, etc.?

random thought - everytime I read "cheers" at the end of one of your posts, I picture some friendly guy at the local pub hoisting a tall frosty one.....

cheers back at'cha,

rorr

snakeweasel

I'm not saying that EV's could replace 50% of the market (or even 25%). I think that it is ENTIRELY feasible that they could represent as much as 10% of the market IF THE COST WAS REASONABLE.

I would estimate that as many as 30-35% of the cars out there could be replaced with an EV. However I think that a 15-20% penetration of the market could be achieved in 10-15 years.

reddroverr

I pointed out on the Tesla thread that there are 1.9 vehicles per household and 1.8 drivers. A whole lot of those could be EV's ..no problem.

I am a one driver household and I would seriously consider an ev with a 200-250 range.

How far these things penetrate will depend on how competitive they are. Seems to me they are pretty simple and the real cost of ownership could be easilly less than a ICE...eventually...after bugs are worked out.

We don't know how good they can get. Maybe in a few years we have a 300-350 range..maybe faster charging..who knows what the market share would be then.

Even if there was a great one available now at a reasonable price, it would take quite some time before they dominated "in service vehicles" ..though if the cost to drive is significantly lower..then the actual miles put on the average EV may be significantly higher than the in service ICE for the family. After all, if you can spend $% in gas to go to walmart or $.50 for the EV..which one do you drive most?

midnightcowboy

"After all, if you can spend $% in gas to go to walmart or $.50 for the EV..which one do you drive most? "

My S2000

snakeweasel

Rather have my Caddy.

See you in my rear view :P

tpe

However I think that a 15-20% penetration of the market could be achieved in 10-15 years.

I hope you're right but I'm not quite that optimistic. Mitsubishi has an electric Colt that it originally planned to start selling in 2010 but I've heard rumors that might get pushed up to 2008. As of last year they were talking about only a 90 mile range and a price of $19k. I suspect that by the time it hits the market current battery technology will allow them to improve on those numbers. How this vehicle is received will be a good indication of how quickly EVs will get adopted. It will have a lot to do with gas prices at that time. Even though I sympathize with those that struggle to pay for gas as an EV enthusiast I want to see fuel prices remain high.

snakeweasel

At $19k with only a 90 mile range it will be a hard sell. Either the price has to come down or the range has to come up or (hopefully) both.

reddroverr

"See you in my rear view "

Guess again.

reddroverr

I agree there, but it might find a decent specialty audience...if reliable and such. 19k isn't much these days. The second car Fit/Yaris buyer with a green streak might be tempted...for a few $K more.

snakeweasel

Guess again.

Ok it will just disappear in my rear view mirror. :shades:

tpe

While the $19k price may keep it from having mainstream appeal it is actually pretty reasonable for an EV. It uses a Li-ion battery pack that must store around 20 kWh to produce this 90 mile range. The 27 kWh NiMH battery pack of the Toyota RAV4 EV cost $27k to replace. So, while still expensive, it is an indication that battery costs are coming down at a fairly rapid pace.

terry92270

This is the electric car that can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 4.0 seconds to a top speed of 120 mph in one gear with no shifting thanks to its two electric motors -- smaller versions of the same kind found in diesel-electric locomotives -- that combine to produce over 1,000 lbf ft. of torque. No wider than most motorcycles at 39", it can fit in a 6' half-lane with more clearance than a semi-truck in a full 12' freeway lane, enabling you to negotiate traffic congestion where lane splitting is permitted. Its small size eliminates the need for parallel parking as it can park perpendicular to a curb without the need for a full space. The driver and passenger sit in tandem front and back seats that use four-point pilot seat belts with iner tia reels, similar to harnesses found in race cars, yet are easy to use. The cars chassis is made of stainless steel, and the chrome moly roll cage meets Sports Car Club of America racing standards for safety. The body panels are made of carbon fiber, Kevlar, and fiberglass, and its side impact bars offer four times the protection found in typical SUVs.

The cars unique stability is derived from its low center of gravity, created by 1,100 lbs. of batteries under the floor, giving it a rollover threshold equivalent to a 5-star National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rating found in the lowest-slung sports cars.

It has front and rear disc brakes and coil-over shock absorbers. The car generates no emissions and operates from a set of lead-acid batteries that can recharge using any service up to 50 amps, providing enough power for a range of 40-80 miles, up to four times the average commute in the U.S.

SIZE:8 1/2 L x 39 W x 60 H. (3,000 lbs.) $108,000.00 :P

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE PICTURE

reddroverr

haha

they won't be selling very many of those.

reddroverr

I don't know for sure but I seem to remember a Prius battery would run ~$3,500 to replace? In an EV I guess that might be two or three years of fuel cost savings.

19k isn't all that much these days for a regular car. You can spend that and more on a civic, easilly. Of course we don't know how well equiped the ev would come.

Actually, an ev like that might have em lined up out the door. have to see.

reddroverr

Yowza, I didn't realize some of those Caddies moved out like that.

snakeweasel

Yeah thats what happens when you put a corvette engine in a Caddy

tpe

$3500 sounds about right for a Prius battery replacement. You've got to remember that battery pack only holds about 1.3 kWh of energy. That will only get you 5-6 miles in a small car. At the present time each additional kWh adds $500-$1000 on to the price for Li-ion. Those are figures provided by a spokesperson for Valence Technology, a company that makes large format Li-ion batteries for EVs.

That's why I say $19k sounds like a pretty good deal for a car that must have a 20 kWh battery pack.

Right now there are Chinese companies aggressively pursuing large scale manufacturing of these types of batteries. We should see some big price drops in the fairly near future. Unfortunately it will be one more thing that the US has to import.

reddroverr

They may well be losing money on early runs of the EV colt. Still, there are a lot less complications... no radiator, gas tank, simpler transmission, hoses, filters, starter, etc.

tpe

Mitsubishi might be losing money at first but it is still probably a good move to make for a company trying to regain some prominence. By filling a void that no one else seems willing to they could generate a lot of positive PR.

I agree that there are a lot of reasons to like EVs that go way beyond the political or environmental considerations.

reddroverr

By filling a void that no one else seems willing to they could generate a lot of positive PR.

Absolutely.

Any new technology is risky by nature. But to get the leg up on hybrids and even plug in hybrids or leap frog that technology entirely is a pretty big prize. I am pleased to see a major get some product out there.

midnightcowboy

Trouble is Mitsubishi isn't really a major automobile player and they are struggling just to stay afloat now in the auto market. New Eclipse has promis, but all other models are lagging.

Most venture capitalists do a risk analysis and projected market plan to minimize "new technology risk" If it fails on the paper exercise it is either redesigned or scrapped.
Or you do a limited pilot . For example make a sharp looking fast electric sports car. Name it after a famous electical pioneer. Two good marketing points. Put a high price tag on it to make it elusive and presell the first run of 100 units. Good plan well see if it works. Low risk to the entrepenuers; high risk to the early adopter. Let's call it the Marconi !

YOMV,

MidCow

reddroverr

ya, Mit is not Toyota, but they are in the car biz and they do sell hundreds of thousands of cars. They have a network of dealers, manufacturing, engineers, suppliers and such. 782 on forbes list of largest companies.

What better way to help a comeback than a nice innovative car? Kinda hard to compete with honda and toyota et al head to head in the market space.

Maybe Tesla makes some money with the high end roadster. But they are borrowing the chassis and other tech. If they come up with a viable mass market car, they will likely lease the technology to the majors, or get bought out.

apeweek

Interesting development this week, here's a new website - this is evidently another Chinese EV manufacturer (the poorly constructed English on the site is the giveaway) offering electric vehicles AND serial hybrids for sale. He has several models, all of which do freeway speeds, have ranges over 100 miles, and have price tags well under $10,000. In hybrid mode, they have ranges closer to 300 miles.

http://www.fevehicle.com/services.html

Reading the website, he seems to believe he will have no problem meeting certification to run on US roads (I wish I was as optimistic.)

From the battery pictures I see, he appears to be running the cars on the same Chinese 'Thunder Sky' lithium batteries we've talked about here before.

I know the reaction this will get from some of us here, but if nothing else, this should at least demonstrate that electric vehicles can indeed be made at affordable prices.

reddroverr

under 10k (we will have to see how importing varies the price...if they make it here.) and a range of 100 miles? Sounds like something quite a few second car buyers might go for. provided it is not total junk.

For the technically oriented:

would putting in a transmission with gears increase the range of an ev?

apeweek

...provided it is not total junk.

It's hard to imagine that a sub-$10,000 car would NOT be junk.

However, even junky cars have their place. It should be easy to exceed buyers expectations at that price.

Regarding EV transmissions, many EVs have only a single-gear transmission, since the powerband of the motor is wide enough to allow this. A couple gears would probably be an improvement (the Tesla has two gears, so it can get to 130mph.) Not sure that it makes a big difference in range, however.

tpe

The Tesla Roadster does have 2 gears but I think there is some mention on their website that you could leave it in 2nd (high) gear all the time and it would still accelerate very quickly. So I agree, the characteristics of an electric motor make gears less important.

tpe

I read that Chrysler is going to bring the Smart Car to the US. Supposedly it can get 60 mpg but I suspect that is with a turbo-diesel engine. Zap has been getting these cars from third party sources and then going through significant effort to have them certified as street legal in this country. The result is that the final mark-up to the consumer is fairly steep yet they've been selling every one they could get their hands on. I think to myself, no one is going to buy this car for long road trips. It is perfect for an EV. Chrysler could make it as such and by not having to jump through all the hoops that Zap has to probably sell it for about the same amount yet it would now be the equivalent of a 150 mpg vehicle. That just seems like a no-brainer to me. This is not going to be a high volume sales vehicle that has any positive impact on Chrysler's bottom line. Then why not at least make it a significant vehicle that furthers their image. As an EV it would be such a vehicle.